New York Times Wonders Why Voters Don’t Like The Economy?

Talk about irony…

In many ways, the economy has not looked so good in a long time.
The price of gas at the pump has tumbled since midsummer. Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in more than five years. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average has finally returned to its glory days of the late 1990’s, setting records almost daily.
President Bush, in hopes of winning credit for his party’s stewardship of the economy, is spending two days this week campaigning on the theme that the economy is purring. “No question that a strong economy is going to help our candidates,” Mr. Bush said in a CNBC interview yesterday, “primarily because they have got something to run on, they can say our economy’s good because I voted for tax relief.”
But Republican candidates do not seem to be getting any traction from the glowing economic statistics with midterm elections just two weeks away.
The economy is virtually nowhere to be found among the campaign ads of embattled Republican incumbents fighting to hold onto their House or Senate seats. Nor is it showing up as a strong weapon in the arsenal of Republican governors defending their jobs from Democrats.
“I don’t know of another election cycle in which the economy was so good, yet the election prospects for the incumbent party looked so bad,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist. “If something goes wrong, Republicans are to blame. If something goes right, Republicans don’t get credit.”

Gee, I wonder why that is?

image

The media almost never reports good economic news unless it’s qualified with some silly statement like “but the growth was slower than experts expected” or “jobless claims among Americans declined even as unemployment among red-haired longshoreman spiked.” Ok, maybe that last one is an exaggeration, but you get what I mean.
The idea that this economy is awful is one of the biggest media hoaxes perpetuated on the American people in…well…not that long given the CBS Memos controversy. But still, even as economic growth chugs along, unemployment stays low and America, generally, prospers there are people in this country going around griping about “the economy.” Mostly because whenever they pick up a newspaper or watch television news all they hear about our economy is negativity.
It’s pathetic. A true testament to just how slanted and pervasively biased the news media really is.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Call me crazy,

    …Enjoy November 7th, ladies. When the democrats sweep both houses, at least you’ll have this ‘Roaringly Awesome Economy’ to be thankful for.

    Ok your crazy. And delusional.

  • Troy_Pineri

    The numbers that the government publishes are false. Thats every administration back to JFK who was the first to change how the CPI is calculated.

    “This roaring economy” is the real smoke and mirrors. First of all the Dow Jones reaching 12,000 is a bunch of BS. The value of the dollar since 2000 has fallen by 1/3. The Dow would have to exceed 14000 to be same as 2000 dollars. Secondly the make up of the Dow Jones has changed. The poor performers have been dropped for companies like Google. Thirdly the Dow is very small; the broader S&P 500 is still down (even farther with inflation), and the Nasdaq is too.

    George Bush’s rescue of the dot coms, the Enron and World Com blow up etc.. the credit should go to those criminals Ben Bernake and Alan Greenspan, who orchestrated this current real estate bubble, which is the real cause for jobs growth, and spending. The longer these Federal Reserve Policies (in both the Clinton and Bush administrations) continue, the harder the total economic collapse. It is going to happen! This economy or “boom” times is really a myth.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    People know that they’re doing ok, but they take the media’s word for it concerning people they don’t know.

    Why don’t you want people to know the truth Puzzled?

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Gee woofie, what happened to your surpluses.

  • Puzzlefeet

    No Rob, I choose to live in the real world and not repeat the same old tired right wing tripe that you received in your latest talking points memo from some right wing group. You keep writing that the economy is great when most people in the middle class (except you of course who works for the family’s business) are not seeing it the same way. If the middle class felt it in their paychecks or in their benefits no amount of press would tell them otherwise, but health care costs are up over the CPI, tuition costs have risen dramatically, and wages have not risen at the same pace even though productivity is very high.

    It’s not about victims Rob, again the talking point word of the day, it’s about reality which you refuse to acknowledge.

  • robert108

    Total compensation has risen quite nicely, as was illustrated in a thread on this blog awhile back. It is correct to refuse to acknowledge your false “reality” of doom and gloom. As America becomes more prosperous, unions become less and less relevant, which is a very good thing. Your agenda is evaporating in this hot economy.

  • Bat One

    WOOF offers,

    After 5 years we are finally approaching
    Clinton economic numbers.

    Which begs the question, what exactly did Clinton DO that made “his” economy so much better? Mr. Bush’s one great economic policy has been tax cuts, and as with Reagan and JFK before him, that policy has generated enormous economic growth.

    But since WOOF and Puzzle insist on bringing up Bill Clinton, perhaps someone will explain just what he actually did to foster and ensure this country’s economic vitality?

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    Woof: In spite of 9/11, Katrina and the Democrats

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    You mean the place where you think you can lift every person in this country out of poverty by raising the minimum wage?

    That worked out well for kids who had jobs as movie ushers and gas pump attendeants, didn’t it?

  • Puzzlefeet

    Gee, Rob, if the times are so good, it shouldn’t take the media to tell the middle class that times are so good. They should be able to figure that out from their paychecks, their lifestyles, and their benefits. The fact that you continue to whine and blame the MSM for not reporting the “great” economic news is because the middle class isn’t feeling it. They are not getting the raises and stock options that the rich executives are. Those executives are certainly celebrating the rise in the stock market.

    They don’t have to worry about paying more for health insurance and out of pockets and more for prescriptions; the middle class does however. So Rob, you will now claim that I am waging class warfare but the fact is that the economy isn’t working for everyone which is why it doesn’t matter what the MSM does or does not say about the economy, the middle class ain’t feeling it.

  • robert108

    According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficits/surpluses for years 1993-2000 were (respectively and in billions)
    $-255, -$203, -$164, -$21, +$69, +$125, +$236, +$128

    Typical leftie spin: When George Bush halves the deficit years ahead of schedule, he is just “manipulating the numbers”, even though what he accomplished is based on sound economic policy, but when Clinton does nothing but raise taxes and slash the military, his massaging of the numbers is never pointed out. In fact, the sycophantic MSM lies for him to the American public.

  • *

    Just out of curiousity, what does that * signify in the graph, Rob? (Bush 2004 *)

    Because the first link the graph is associated with has a graph referring to the ‘Roaringly Awesome Economy.’ The link THAT website points to smells like Scaife’s feet.

    Neither site directly attributes what the meaning of ‘Bush 2004 *’ means.

    In addition to Scaife’s feet, I smell an Arthur-Anderson-calibre analysis here.

    Call me crazy, but Woof and Puzzle’s assessment is a tad more correct than wishful thinking.

    But what do I know- I only work for a living, and the Paris Hilton tax cuts have had absolutely no bearing on my above-average salary.

    Enjoy November 7th, ladies. When the democrats sweep both houses, at least you’ll have this ‘Roaringly Awesome Economy’ to be thankful for.

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    more government will fix the problems caused by too much government.

    That’s the same logic the mercenary life insurance industry uses when it peddles its “product” as a “solution” to the death tax.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Kevin, more government will fix the problems caused by too much government.

  • robert108

    Woof, you said that BJ Clinton had a surplus. Your graph said otherwise.

    The Clinton “surplus” was a ten-year projection; in other words, smoke and mirrors.

  • puzzlefeet

    Hey guttermouth, once again, you show yourself to be the liar you always are. I don’t change names, I am puzzlefeet and am not afraid to use my puzzlefeet name for what I write, unlike you, who has to swear and name call to make point.

  • Troy_Pineri

    Roaring is not a goal we should have

  • robert108

    TP: Of course, if they don’t agree with your ideology, the numbers must be “false”. BTW, the market index is not directly affected by inflation; it’s the outcome between the value of buy and sell orders on any given day, which is only very indirectly related to the CPI. You ought to know that, but you obviously don’t. The stock market index is more affected by trading volume, and that has increased tremendously in this roaring economy. Read it and weep, commie!

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Anarchist Vegan: The Final Ins

    WOOF: I liked your graphs to prove your points but one that you didn’t include was the growth in the gap between the wealthiest 20% and the poorest 20%. Unfortunately I cannot find them right now (and I’ll try harder if you don’t believe me), but I have seen figures that this gap grew significantly under Clinton.

    Interestingly, when calculating the real wages (cost of living adjusted) the middle 60% of income earners remained largely static during the Clinton `boom’ years. Since he was only president, I am sure he cannot take the full blame, but to think that the Democrat’s are the champions of poor and middle America seems false.

    I await the results of Bush’s reign, but I suspect the same may have happened also (as has generally happened since the 70′s, but of course this is only speculation). Too judge the results of Bush’s policies after only a few years may not be indicative.

  • puzzlefeet

    Hey guttermouth, did you pig get away again, or did you just forget to take those meds again. You are hallucinating again about people with multiple names on this blog. Please you can always get another pig for your personal entertainment.

  • robert108

    You misstate the concept of economic efficiency; not surprising. The benefits must accrue to those who earn them. You conveniently left that part out.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    He got credit for the dot com boom without getting blamed for the bust that also happened under his watch.

    He wasn’t responsible for either.

  • robert108

    AV: You go out on your bicycle and I’ll go out in my Mercedes, and we will see who gets the most and the most attractive women. You can have all the men for yourself.

  • Puzzlefeet

    Wow, big surprise,Rob, the accusation I predicted you would use. So if I deign to disagree with your assessment, I am waging class warfare. I dare say if people were doing great in this economy, it would be reflected in the polling (now here comes the part where you claim polls are inaccurate cuz they don’t say what you want them to say. Oh and the bloggers on here are not enough of a sample to claim that the middle class should be happy with this economy.

    Wages and salaries have not risen at the same rate as corporate profits. More families and children are without health insurance. the poverty rate went up last year. But hey, the stock market hit 12000. It was at 11,000 in 2000, so geez Rob, up 1000 in 6 years. Whooppee! about 46% of people with money in the market are at less than $5000 so geez why aren’t they celebrating. Productivity is up wages are stagnant, but hey why isn’t the middle class happy? Go figure!

  • 2Hotel9

    And your point is, * ?

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    woofie, explain then WHY the national debt went up EVERY year of the Clinton administration.

  • 2Hotel9

    Leftards begin play textmess games when they are on the short end of the stick. Hence puzzledf**k and woofie. Now we will all get treated to their WAWAWAWAWA, since their lies and bullshit are so transparent.

  • Troy_Pineri

    We will see who’s right when your paper assets are worth 0.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Anarchist Vegan: Not an Econom

    Redistribution of wealth is stealing. I think no one questions that we need taxes, but we don’t need to be giving away 10 to 30 percent of our incomes so the politicians can do as they please with it.–goon

    There is something in economics called the `efficiency criterion’. This means that as a result of an economic action, if the net `benefit’ to one or many people is greater than the net `cost’ to one or more people, then that action is `efficient’.

    If we extrapolate that to taxes, if more people benefit by heavily taxing the wealthy and therefore having lower taxes for a larger number of less wealthy, then it is `efficient’ (or at least democratic). Bugger to be wealthy eh? You can just give all your wealth to charity to get a lower tax-rate if you don’t like your current high rate :)

  • robert108

    Woof: According to Karl Marx, “capitalism” cannot prosper, so when it does, there must be something wrong; failing that, the Marxists predict that prosperity will lead to disaster. That is why I said what I said. The last thing the Marxists want for the US is a roaring economy, because it shows them up for the fools and liars they are.

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    health care costs are up over the CPI, tuition costs have risen dramatically,

    That’s because they are sheltered from market forces, but details, details, eh?

  • robert108

    AV: Of course, the only class struggle that has existed is in stratified societies with no upward mobility. Marx believed that return to capital was not only “unfair” and unjust, but that it only produced prosperity for the upper classes at the expense of the “workers”; that isn’t the truth, of course, but he based his entire economic thought on that flawed belief, along with a few other equally flawed ones.
    In our system, capital and labor cooperate to produce the greatest good for the greatest number, and there has never been a Marxist revolution in a free country with a demand economic system, private ownership and control of capital, and upward mobility. Why trade a Mercedes for a Yugo?

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Anarchist Vegan: The Final Ins

    Nice stats WOOF, but they don’t have wages, only income. If the average family went from 55 hours to 70 hours work per week for example, this will increase income.

    Robert108: I am pretty sure that Marx thought that capitalism increases wealth (and was good at it too), but his point was that the distribution of the wealth was unfair (leading to class struggle).

  • robert108

    One correction: Not a Yugo; a bicycle.

  • robert108

    Roaring is not a goal we should have

    Spoken like a true Marxist.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Woof, you said that BJ Clinton had a surplus. Your graph said otherwise.

  • 2Hotel9

    troy, don’t put all your financial eggs in a single basket. You ain’t intelligent enough to figure that out, then you need to take your “investment capital”, put it in a mason jar, and bury it in the backyard. What a twit.

  • 2Hotel9

    woofie/puzzledf**k, it was cute once, now it is just stupid. As for mortgage rates, why would you not have a fixed rate mortgage? ARMs only go up, so if you are stupid enough to have one you get what you deserve.

  • *

    Troy-

    Let’s get the facts straight: it is not the ‘roaring economy’ it is the ‘Roaringly Awesome Economy’

    The cherry-picked, asterix-laden graph told me so. And here I thought W and Barry Bonds only similarity was an affinity for baseball.

    The difference between a ‘Roaring Economy’ and a ‘Roaringly Awesome Economy’ is: in a ‘Roaringly Awesome Economy,’ we all get FREE PONIES!!!

    Hooray!

    Hope everyone’s morgage is 30-year-fixed, because when China’s economic ministers come calling, some people are going to be eating shoe-leather.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Anarchist Vegan: The Final Ins

    Robert108: Why trade a Mercedes for a bicycle? Fitter and healthier people live longer and are more attractive to the opposite sex (and probably the same sex too if that’s your scene).

    Also, I am not a Marxist so criticising his dumb theories is fine by me. I don’t know if anyone really wants a `dictatorship of the proletariat’.

  • robert108

    AV: Actually, it’s not so complicated. When you confiscate the proceeds from a producer, you remove the incentive to produce, and the entire system lurches toward stagnation. All “efficiency” is lost, and you have the typical socialist/redistributionist economic situation. People aren’t units; they are aware of what they get in return for their efforts, and are aware when they aren’t getting value for what they put out. If they have freedom, they will use their mobility to seek out a better outcome; if they are not free, they will simply stop being productive, and seek to get on the dole, or whatever is available. Either way, the redistributionist area experiences a drop in efficiency.

  • robert108

    I don’t know if anyone really wants a `dictatorship of the proletariat’.

    Not even if it brings on the “workers’ paradise”?

  • 2Hotel9

    Is that woofie or puzzledf**k crying about how the graphs do not bear out there doom&gloom? When they start changing usenames it is apparent they have lost.

  • HG

    AV,

    This is what is meant by efficieny.

    There is something in economics called the `election criterion’. This means that as a result of ‘redistributing wages’, if the net `voting block’ to democrats is greater than the net `injustice’ to one or more wage earners, then that action is `politically expedient’.

  • HG

    If we extrapolate that to taxes, if more people benefit by heavily taxing the wealthy and therefore having lower taxes for a larger number of less wealthy, then it is `efficient’ (or at least democratic).

    If I rob a bank and get a million dollars which belonged to some wealthy big-shot. Then all I have to do is split it with one other person and the benefit increase is 200%.
    Now it’s not grand theft, just ‘economic efficiency’. Thanks AV, I’ll split it with you, since after all, it was your idea.

  • robert108

    aNON: I’ll go up against a guy on a bike any time. LOL

  • aNONOMISLY

    rob, aren’t you an old-fart? ..not even a Mercedes will help you with that …what year?, lol

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Anarchist Vegan: Not an Econom

    HG: Robert108 has already covered (busted me on) this. I may have been extrapolating too far. But thanks for the offer to go halves. The problem is by pointing guns at people (emotional trauma), maybe even having to shoot a couple, you’ll increase the `costs’. The `benefits’ will have to be pretty big to justify this.

    The 200% benefit increase would only be true if the wealthy dude was made half as unhappy as we combined were made happy. If his happiness went from 7 to 4, your happiness went from 5 to 6, and mine went from 8 to 3 (too much pressure of having to do something useful with my new found wealth), and excluding `externalities’, then there would be a net-loss. This would be inefficient. :)

  • Troy_Pineri

    Remember how great the “Roaring 20′s” were? and what immedietely followed?

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

    Redistribution of wealth is stealing. I think no one questions that we need taxes, but we don’t need to be giving away 10 to 30 percent of our incomes so the politicians can do as they please with it.

  • WOOFX

    After 5 years we are finally approaching
    Clinton economic numbers.

    Good job Georgie.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Gee, Rob, if the times are so good, it shouldn’t take the media to tell the middle class that times are so good.

    Hey, people believe what the see on television and read in the paper. It’s unfortunate, but true. When they’re told, over and over again, that times are tough they believe that even if reality suggests differently.

    By the way Puzzle, I’m middle class. So are most of the readers of this blog, I’d imagine. Most of us think the economy is great. Who are you to tell us otherwise?

    You are waging class warfare. This is what you liberals do. You need people to be dependent on the government. You can’t fathom a society where people are independent and self-sufficient, nor can you get it through your head there are always going to be some people who can’t succeed.

    The world isn’t perfect. That doesn’t mean you get to punish the successful with high taxes so that we can tell the unsuccessful that they’re entitled to things they didn’t earn.

    Absolutely amazing. Even the New York Times admits that the economy is doing well, and still you blinkered doofs can’t get with the program.

  • WOOFX

    Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    No Rob, I choose to live in the real world and not repeat the same old tired right wing tripe that you received in your latest talking points memo from some right wing group.

    You’re in the real world? You mean the place where you think you can lift every person in this country out of poverty by raising the minimum wage?

    Please.

    Listen, you and I just see the world differently. I want a world I’m not burdened by unnecessary taxes and everyone is free to provide for themselves. You want a world where we pay lots in taxes and are beholden to the government.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    After five years we’ve climbed out of the .com crash, survived high energy prices and dealt with the economic impact of 9/11 and two wars in the middle east.

    So yes, good job Georgie. Clinton didn’t have to deal with a tenth of that, and he got credit for the .com bubble before it popped.

  • WOOFX

    Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Total crap, Woofie.

    We’re in boom times, but you liberals can’t let anyone believe that. You need them to believe that they need help from the government to get by. You need that because then liberal politicians can position themselves as the ones to provide government help and then use that to buy votes.

    Amazingly disgusting and dishonest

  • WOOFX

    According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficits/surpluses for years 1993-2000 were (respectively and in billions)
    $-255, -$203, -$164, -$21, +$69, +$125, +$236, +$128

    Clinton PayGo as opposed to

    Bush/Conservative fiscal policy?

  • WOOFX

    Gee woofie, what happened to your surpluses.

    09-22-2006

    Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) has authorized an increase of its existing common share repurchase program of up to an additional $2 billion.

    Iraqis and Afghanis have spent those surpluses .

    Houses and families in Paris, London, Damascus, and kids at Eton and the Sorbonne.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    You’ve always got to have your victims to pander to, don’t you puzzle?

  • WOOFX

    In the 1998 survey, inflation-adjusted mean and median family incomes continued the upward trend between the 1992 and 1995 surveys; they also surpassed the levels observed in the 1989 survey toward the end of the previous expansion….

    From 1995 to 1998, the proportion of families with incomes of $50,000 or more rose from one-fifth to 33.8%, while the proportion with incomes below $10,000 fell about one-sixth to 12.6%.

    Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances

    Under Clinton, the median family income increased from 27,900 in 1992 to 32.7 thousand in 1995, 33,400 in 1998 and 39,900 in 2001. Over the same period inflation increased 28%, making the total inflation adjusted gain 15%. Average income increased from $44,000 in 1992, to $47,500 in 1995, to $53,100 in 1998 to $68,000 in 2001 for an inflation adjusted increase of 23%.

  • WOOFX

    Roaring is not a goal we should have

    Spoken like a true Marxist.

    Call the Red Squad Hotel,

    and point them to the

    Directors of the Federal Reserve.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus